Recently on Cyclingnews.com

An interview with Tyler Hamilton, April 28, 2005

Tyler's side of things: Hamilton reacts to doping ban

Following the passing of a two year suspension on him last week, Tyler
Hamilton has told Cyclingnews' Shane Stokes that he has every intention
of fighting his case. Although the Olympic champion was found guilty of committing
a doping offence by the USADA-appointed American Arbitration Association panel,
he has remained both defiant and optimistic about his chances of eventually
being cleared, taking consolation from the dissenting voice of one of the three
arbitrators judging the matter.

"In May, we will file an appeal that will be heard by the Court of Arbitration
for Sport in Switzerland," Hamilton told Cyclingnews. "We will ask for an expedited
hearing to try and resolve my case as quickly as possible, but we assume it
will take a couple of months to schedule. We still feel very good about our
case, and look forward to the appeal process moving ahead. We are encouraged
by the fact that Christopher Campbell, who has been on more doping arbitration
panels than perhaps any CAS arbitrator, agreed that this is a bad test that
should not be used. We believe his dissent is the first written opinion by a
CAS arbitrator finding that a specific doping test is invalid."

Responding to a number of questions put to him by Cyclingnews, Hamilton outlines
the problems he had with the process. Apart from his dissatisfaction with what
he said were inaccurate UCI measurements of his blood in the run-up to last
year's Tour de France, he highlights several factors specific to his positive
test which he feels weakens the case against him. Firstly, Hamilton cites the
lack of a false positive study which, he says, makes the test unacceptable within
the scientific community. He also criticises the lack of quantifiable criteria
for a positive test, rejecting the 'I know it when I see it' approach, and blasts
WADA for what he says was selective interpretations of peer-reviewed studies.

"The peer-review article and the comments of the peer-review committee determined
that the test had a lower limit of detection or minimum threshold that should
be applied before calling a sample positive for a blood transfusion," he explains.
"All experts agreed that my sample was below that minimum threshold. But WADA
and the Panel completely disregarded the minimum threshold. That was very disappointing."

Hamilton says that his Olympic 'A' sample was twice deemed negative, before
being changed. He says that such a modification of a result is a violation of
WADA code, as was the lack of anonymity in the case. 'All tests conducted for
anti doping purposes are supposed to be anonymous. None of mine were. Ever.
Which is not only a violation of the WADA code, but my right to privacy as well,'
he states. Furthermore, he feels that statements proclaiming his guilt by WADA
president Dick Pound call into question the whole impartiality of the process.

"I don't think it's fair for officials from any governing body to speak out
about a case before athletes have had the chance to defend themselves," he says.
"At the onset of my case I was told things would remain confidential until there
was a conclusion. But before my B sample testing could begin news of my case
was leaked to the press. What if my B samples came back negative all the way
around? It seems that some folks are comfortable with trying cases through the
media before the judicial process resolves them. I don't think this is appropriate.
Nor am I comfortable with the concept of guilty until proven innocent."

The UCI and WADA remain convinced that they have a case, that Hamilton is guilty
and that he will serve a two year ban. Everything hinges on how the CAS appeal
progresses; if it accepts the UCI/WADA/USADA view, his career is almost certainly
over. But, if it goes the other way and they agree with Hamilton's arguments,
he will be back racing this year. Seven months have passed since news of his
positive tests, but the final outcome still remains to be decided.

Although we were able to contact Tyler, a face-to-face interview was impossible
at the present time, and his responses came via email.

Cyclingnews: Firstly, can I get your reaction to the ruling? Are you
surprised at the outcome, or had you any indications it would go this way?

Tyler Hamilton: Since I have not committed a doping offence,
yes, I was completely surprised by the outcome. Everyone on my side felt we
had put on a very good case. We were confident in the issues we raised. We highlighted
the fact that my test results were inconsistent and we were thoughtfully critical
of the test's validation and implementation. We felt these issues created considerable
doubt about the way this test was developed, how it's being used, and how the
results were being interpreted.

CN: What is your plan of action from here, and what are your chances?

TH: In May, we will file an appeal that will be heard by
the Court of Arbitration for Sport in Switzerland. We will ask for an expedited
hearing to try and resolve my case as quickly as possible, but we assume it
will take a couple of months to schedule. We still feel very positive about
our case, and look forward to the appeal process moving ahead. We are encouraged
by the fact that Christopher Campbell, who has been on more doping arbitration
panels than perhaps any CAS arbitrator, agreed that this is a bad test and should
not be used. We believe his dissent is the first written opinion by a CAS arbitrator
finding that a specific doping test is invalid.

CN: Can you outline your main problems/criticisms of the findings, and
of the hearing itself?

TH: There were a number of issues missing from the ruling
opinion, in our estimation.

Our biggest disappointment with the opinion was that it did not accept our
recommendation that every test being used for anti doping purposes must absolutely
have a false positive study to support it. Science requires such a false positive
study.

Researchers associated with the test have stated publicly that the test is
"100% accurate, and there are no false positives". No test is 100% accurate,
and without doing a false positive analysis, they cannot say there are no false
positives. One of USADA's witnesses testified during the hearing that they didn't
need to do a false positive study because he "just knows the chances of false
positives are low". This assumption would not be acceptable in the scientific
community. If they did no false positive study, then how can they say the false
positive rate is low?

We also argued that his test lacks quantifiable criteria to determine results.
Experts on both sides stated that a quantifiable component could be added. But
the decision did not mandate that quantifiable criteria be added to the test,
and that was very disappointing.

In addition, the WADA approved "visual criteria" for determining the results
of this test equates to an "I know it when I see it" evaluation. This standard
has been deemed "unacceptable" in other doping cases when quantifiable criteria
could be used to back up the visual interpretation. Ultimately, the quantifiable
criteria determined the results in those cases. The opinion in my case contradicts
those rulings.

Finally, WADA, while on the one hand relying on the "peer-reviewed" study for
this new test in arguing that it is scientifically reliable, disregarded and
contradicted other parts of that peer-review study. The peer-review article
and the comments of the peer-review committee determined that the test had a
lower limit of detection or minimum threshold that should be applied before
calling a sample positive for a blood transfusion. All experts agreed that my
sample was below that minimum threshold. But WADA and the Panel completely disregarded
the minimum threshold. That was very disappointing.

Each of our arguments were dismissed by two of the arbitrators, but the majority
decision provides little explanation for why these arguments were rejected.
At the very minimum, we absolutely expected to see a series of recommendations
made regarding how the test could be improved, or at least a comprehensive analysis
of all of the arguments that were made. The hearing lasted four days, and the
Panel had six weeks to write the decision.

CN: Have other blood tests confirmed mixed red blood cell populations,
or just the Olympic/Vuelta tests?

TH: I want to clarify that my Olympic test was negative.
In fact, two tests were run on my A sample in Athens and both were declared
negative by the lab. As Christopher Campbell so clearly pointed out in his dissenting
opinion, the very people who developed the test made the re-designation of my
Athens sample to positive. There are important issues to raise here - first,
according to WADA code, once a sample is "declared" it can't be changed. But
mine was. Second, the group that changed the declaration had a vested interest
in the outcome of the results since they had a hand in developing the test.
And finally, this group also knew the test results were mine. All tests conducted
for anti doping purposes are supposed to be anonymous. None of mine were. Ever.
Which is not only a violation of the WADA code, but my right to privacy as well.

We were never provided the standard operating procedure (SOP) for this test,
although we requested it many times. Medical experts at MIT took the Nelson
research and my test results, and backed out what they believed to be the test
protocol. By the time we had given up on waiting for the SOP, and recreated
the procedure on our own, it was December. So, trying to duplicate or get to
the bottom of those results has been a difficult road. To date, we have not
been able to explain the UCI's findings. But research is ongoing.

CN: What made you believe that you could have been a chimera or had
a vanishing twin? Does the fact that Santi Perez, a Phonak teammate, failed
the same test make your case difficult, re arguing the chimera defense?

TH: I need to make something very clear; the theories
you mention above were examples we provided while making our case that a false
positive study should have been conducted before this test was implemented.

We also argued that twins would have been a good population to study. Mr Campbell
also noted in his dissent that women who have given birth should have been considered.
It is well documented in the medical community that there are people in the
world who have cells from others in their bodies or more than one DNA signature.
To simply say that you think the chances of false positives are "rare" and not
go on to prove that theory is inconsistent with the scientific community's self
imposed standard for validation.

I can never prove whether or not I had a twin in utero. No one can. And USADA
agreed that it is impossible to prove that someone is chimeric. It was difficult
to understand how USADA could argue, and the Panel could accept, that it was
somehow my burden to prove something (chimerism) that USADA had agreed was impossible
to prove. These phenomena are well documented. Enough so that the researchers
who developed the homologous blood transfusion test should have taken them into
account when considering false positives. Santi Perez testing positive had no
bearing on this argument.

The Santi Perez situation is completely confusing to me. I'm told he provided
a number of blood samples during the Vuelta but never tested positive there.
Not until he was called in for an out of competition test in October, at the
start of his off-season, did he test positive. I know he was expecting a judicial
hearing in May or June. However, his case was expedited to the point that he
was not even able to be present for his hearing. This raises a concern over
whether he was given the appropriate opportunity to defend himself.

CN: Were you surprised that the LA Times got access to the data about
your earlier blood readings? How do you respond to that data, which suggested
your blood values were very close to threshold levels set by the UCI?

TH: We provided access to the LA Times. I am trying to
be as candid as possible because I have nothing to hide. Unfortunately, it would
probably take a book to explain the whole case, and in a newspaper article,
not all of the issues will be completely addressed.

Hematocrit levels can vary for a number of reasons. For example: machine calibration
or the way samples are drawn can influence the readings. So can dehydration,
fatigue or illness. When you are putting your body through as much as an endurance
athlete does it's not unusual to see some fluctuation in these results. Training
at altitude or using altitude machines also plays a role in influencing levels.
So there's no hard and fast number for anyone.

I was the returning champion at Liege and Romandie, so for obvious reasons
I expected, and was tested in both places. Our team complained about the Romandie
numbers because we believed they were inaccurate. This is because some riders
on the team competed at both races. Those who did registered on average, 4 point
gains when tested 4 days later at Romandie. In addition, the team's own measurements
were much lower. So we complained to the UCI.

At the Phonak hearing in front of CAS, the UCI testified that they had received
multiple complaints from a number of teams in 2004 disputing the accuracy of
hematocrit readings. So this was not a unique or unusual issue.

CN: Can you outline any problems you have with the UCI tests, re how
they were being done?

TH: I think the approval status of "comfortable satisfaction"
established by WADA opens the door for a number of problems. For starters, it
paves the way for tests being approved that should still be in development.

And while WADA or any governing body like the UCI implementing the WADA code
only has to be "comfortably satisfied" with the results of a test - the athlete
is put to the task of proving their unequivocal innocence.

In my case, it was not enough to cast doubt with sound arguments from medical
experts from some of the best universities in the world. The way the final opinion
read, my only hope of vindicating myself was proving beyond a shadow of a doubt
that I am chimeric, a task that USADA says is impossible.

I think it's fair to say cyclists deserve better. I think a union would really
help. It's my opinion that an athlete's union would never have approved the
homologous blood transfusion test without a false positive study as part of
its validation.

In a recent interview, Dick Pound criticised my point of view on this by asking:
"What is he talking about? His right to cheat or the rights of others not to
be cheated? That's a gross misrepresentation of my point. I am more convinced
than ever, that athletes of all sports need to have unions to insure they are
being treated fairly. Fairness in sport, as a practice, should not be limited
to the playing field. It must also encompass the general health, safety and
wellbeing of the athletes. This includes the standards by which all athletes
are tested by the anti doping community.

I would think that WADA would be interested in having an anti-doping system
that the athletes believe is fair. But their attitude seems to be that they
simply don't care what the athletes think about them. WADA and USADA do not
have a monopoly on protecting the rights of clean athletes, anymore than criminal
prosecutors have a monopoly on keeping our streets safe. Athlete lawyers who
regularly defend athletes in doping cases are protecting the rights of clean
athletes by trying to make sure that the rules are fair, the tests are accurate,
and that innocent athletes do not have their careers and reputations destroyed.
Unfortunately, this select group of attorneys is not included in the rulemaking
process or in the test validation process, and the rules are therefore very
skewed against the athletes.

CN: Have you established why your reticulocyte count was so low before
the Tour of Romandie?

TH: No. We had one of the foremost medical experts in
anti-doping research examine ten years of my health scores and blood tests.
He testified that the score was so low it was not to be believed. Of the thousands
of blood samples he's examined in his career, on athletes known to be doped
for research purposes, he has never seen a number as low as mine except for
one occasion when the sample was known to be mishandled during transport. It's
worth noting that the Tour of Romandie was not a key objective of mine in 2004.
I only had two solid goals for the season - to do well at the Tour de France
and the Olympics. During my key racing period - which spanned from July to September,
all of my values were absolutely normal and consistent with my medical history.

CN: You mentioned that the UCI hematocrit test was inaccurate before
the Tour. What was the reading arrived at by the team's centrifuge?

TH: The night before my Tour de France medical checkup
the team measured my hematocrit at 43. The next morning the UCI measured my
hematocrit at 38. So we noted to the medical staff there that we thought the
reading was low. If anything, you expect to be a little dehydrated in the morning,
and for your hematocrit reading to be slightly higher. This reading proves that
hematocrit scores can be off going in both directions. Sometimes they can be
high and sometime they can be low. This is why teams have their own hematocrit
machines and monitor values independently.

CN: On your web page you talk about an extortionist who appeared to
have advance knowledge of your positive test and that of Santi Perez. Was this
coincidence, or do you feel that something more sinister was going on within
the testing/administrative bodies?

TH: We are still trying to find out more information about
this situation. It is surprising to me that the IOC, WADA and the UCI have not
had an interest in investigating this case. News reports about this situation
were published in Switzerland back in December. The extortionist, who was arrested
and jailed in early November, claims he was only "guessing" that Santi and I
would test positive and defended himself by saying he was only playing a joke
on the general manager of the team (Phonak). But his guessing game was pretty
accurate and it caused an awful lot of stress for people he was targeting. It
is hard to accept that he did not have some inside access.

CN: Dick Pound and the UCI both commented extensively on your case
before a verdict was reached. What are your feelings on this? Do you feel you
had a fair hearing as a result?

TH: I don't think it's fair for officials from any governing
body to speak out about a case before athletes have had the chance to defend
themselves. At the onset of my case I was told things would remain confidential
until there was a conclusion. But before my B sample testing could begin news
of my case was leaked to the press. What if my B samples came back negative
all the way around? It seems that some folks are comfortable with trying cases
through the media before the judicial process resolves them. I don't think this
is appropriate. Nor am I comfortable with the concept of guilty until proven
innocent.

CN: Have you ever used any banned substances or methods?

TH: No.

CN: Finally, what would you say to those following the sport, with
regard to your case?

TH: First and foremost this case is not just about me.
My fight is really on behalf of all athletes who stand to be subjected to tests
that may not be ready for use. I want a better standard for every competitor
of every sport. So I ask that people have patience. Standing up like I have
and speaking openly about my case takes a lot of fortitude. But a large part
of my motivation comes from not wanting anyone else to have to endure the kind
of experience I have over the last seven months.

And I would also ask people to read the full opinion in my case, including
the dissent written by Christopher Campbell. I am faced with the challenge of
telling a very complicated story that incorporates a number of issues. But I
will keep doing my best to answer questions people have. As I have said from
the beginning, I have nothing to hide.